[Maghrebia] An atmosphere of precarious calm has taken hold in Algeria. As the country is keeping a close eye on the unfolding developments in neighbouring Tunisia, authorities seek to maintain peace on the social front and prepare for any possible return to rioting.
Calls for more demonstrations, however, continued unabated. The opposition demanded greater political reforms, including freedom of expression and the lifting of the state of emergency that has been in force since the early 1990s.
In spite of a ban imposed by the local authorities in the wake of the Algeria unrest, the Rally for Culture and Democracy (RCD) is preparing to hold a demonstration on Saturday. The party stressed that the protesters at the Algiers march would call for the release of detainees, the lifting of the state of emergency, the restoration of personal and collective freedoms and the dissolution of the assemblies.
The party is not alone in seeking a break with the past.
Last week, a group of academics, journalists and rights activists launched a national petition, calling for "determination to reject the inevitability of this national crisis" and "the advent of truly democratic government succession".
"Algeria has not paid the tragic price of tens of thousands of victims in a civil war to live forever under an autocratic regime which kills freedom, producing deadlock, death and regression. Let us salute the magnificent struggle by the Tunisian people and support it to move towards the rule of law," the petition said.
The Movement for the Society of Peace (MSP), which is part of the presidential alliance, is preparing a national conference to study the recent riots and cases of self-immolation, as well as the Tunisian Revolution and its implications for the Arab world.
In addition, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika called for detailed reports on attempted self-immolations and the protests. Bouteflika also asked to be informed of events as they happen and instructed the government to take urgent steps to counter social distress.
In the meantime, rumours of increased censorship have spread in the country due to mobile phone service and internet interruptions, which, according to Algérie Télécom communications chief Abdelhakim Meziani, are "nothing more than the effect of work to replace equipment as part of service improvements".
"To talk of censorship or attempts to muzzle freedom of expression on the net is an exaggeration, I feel," he said.
"Quite the contrary; our aim is to perfect internet access for all users, through constant improvements to our services," he explained, saying that his company has just increased its international bandwidth by 10 gigabits, taking it to 46 gigabits.
For his part, Anouar Net chief Sadi Gouasmia said, "We don't engage in any kind of control or filtering and, to make it perfectly clear, we are under no orders to impose any kind of controls on our network."
Still, the tension is palpable. The General Union of Algerian Workers (UGTA), for example, at a Tuesday meeting asked the Algiers unions to set up "monitoring" committees to "prevent any deviations that could affect the works of the unions at demonstrations".
Posted by: Fred ||
01/22/2011 00:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
TUNIS - Tunisia observes three days of national mourning from Friday for the dozens of people killed during protests before and after the ouster of former president Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali, state television said. In a statement released after a cabinet meeting on Thursday, the government said schools and universities, closed since last week, would reopen on Monday.
Mohamed Aloulou, minister for youth and sport, told reporters after the cabinet meeting that sporting events, also on hold since last week, would resume very soon.
At least 78 people have been killed since the start of Tunisias uprising and the unrest has cost 3 billion dinars ($2.1 billion) in damages and lost business, Interior Minister Ahmed Friaa told state TV this week.
The new government, faced with violent street protests for retaining members of the deposed presidents cabinet, offered a blanket amnesty to all political groups. The pledge was issued at the ruling coalitions first cabinet meeting on Thursday. Protesters have complained that despite a promised amnesty, only a few hundred of those imprisoned for political reasons during Ben Alis 23-year rule had been released.
We are in agreement for a general amnesty, said Higher Education Minister Ahmed Ibrahim, an opposition party leader who joined the coalition after Ben Alis removal.
The announcement followed another day of protests, with police firing shots into the air to try to disperse hundreds of demonstrators demanding that ministers associated with the rule of Ben Ali leave the government.
The protesters, who gathered outside the Tunis headquarters of the RCD, Tunisias ruling party for several decades, refused to move back when police fired shots from behind a metal fence. Protests also took place in other towns.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/22/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
The Russian Navy plans to increase its presence on Ukrainian territory by adding urban infrastructure and civilian manpower to its naval assets in Sevastopol. The command of Russias Black Sea Fleet intends to build a housing estate (mikrorayon) for 20,000 personnel of the fleet, their dependents, and civilian service providers to the Russian fleet in that city. The housing estate and associated service infrastructure is planned to occupy both sides of Kazachya Bay, alongside the base of a Russian marine infantry (amphibious landing troops) regiment.
Since those agreements were signed, Moscow has announced plans to replace old warships of its Black Sea Fleet with new ones, increase that Fleets tonnage in net terms, and upgrade the fleets weaponry. Modernization plans as announced during 2010 envisage adding one cruiser, several frigates, and several submarines by 2015. In addition, one Mistral-class amphibious attack ship (out of four planned for procurement from France) is supposed to be allocated to Russias Black Sea Fleet.
#1
IIRC PEOPLES DAILY FORUM > Artic describes same as "GAS-FOR-FLEET" DEAL, in which Ukraine receives unhindered vital energy supplies in return for RussNav base rights in Sevastopal.
The significant shift was tucked quietly into the Fed's weekly report on its balance sheet and phrased in such technical terms that it was not even reported by financial media when originally announced on Jan. 6.
But the new rules have slowly begun to catch the attention of market analysts. Many are at once surprised that the Fed can set its own guidelines, and also relieved that the remote but dangerous possibility that the world's most powerful central bank might need to ask the U.S. Treasury or its member banks for money is now more likely to be averted. Gee. I sure wish I could set the rules that define whether or not I have paid my mortgatge and other creditors.
The link leads to the news source that shall not be named.
In short, it looks like some folks back in the 18th century wanted to make it clear that states were the actual supreme authority in the union, not the federal government. A couple of troublemakers named James Madison and Thomas Jefferson declared this in 1788 and again in 1799 in something called the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. This was done in response to the tyrranical Alien and Sedition Acts when John Adams tried to stifle any criticism of the federal government.
SCOTUS took up the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, and in 1958, SCOTUS decided that the federal government was the supreme power, which had a side effect of suggesting that those two troublemakers didn't know what they were talking about. This is based on Article 6 of The Constitution.
So who do you trust more? Those who actually started this great experiment (who are senile, irrelevant, dead, and couldn't possibly have known what they were talking about because they were over 100 years old), or a SCOTUS from an era when a lot of our troubles germinated, are not quite as dead, and were far more enlightened because they started aligning with some socialist ideal, and were less than 100 years old and spoke with a less educated, practical, relevant, and experienced dialect, one that we more readily recognize today? A SCOTUS that was getting into the politics of corruption in a way that the founding fathers certainly wouldn't have wished upon their people, and did their best to shield them from and arm them against across the generations?
Of course, the concept of nullification has one little self-immolating problem: For some strange reason, people both in government and in general, seem to think it needs the blessing of the SCOTUS. Go figure.
In any case, we've had nullification pop up several times in our history. And the feds have sent troops out to quash this kind of thing, but it has only been one state at a time, and I doubt that the military could be used against the states these days, and I doubt that the members of the military would go along with it, but I am no expert on what can or cannot be done legally here. But one difference between these previous attempts at nullification and now is that if no less than 26 states decided at the same time to just turn their backs on the feds, it would certainly gum up the works. Even five or six states would be more than any reasonable regime would want to contemplate I would think.
Personally, I'm not one to want to see a group of sovereign states follow some group of lemming state off the cliff in the name of those lemmings blindly obeying the decisions of a SCOTUS whose judges often toss out The Consitution and legislate from the bench according to some socialist ideal. In my opinion, judges behaving in this manner do not comport with Article 6, which states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
To me, any decisions that are handed down by judges not acting in pursuance of The Constitution (such as any rulings the SCOTUS comes up with in support of Obamacare) are therefore null and void. Too many sovereign states are acting against Obamacare. Something is wrong.
And I don't care if the SCOTUS makes the self-serving claim to be acting in Pursuance of The Constitution, they are obviously wrong.
The Constitution was written by the founding fathers to be accessible to the common citizen for a reason, and Obamacare is a textbook case of this.
#1
This is one of the reasons I push for a Second Court of the United States.
Since the start of the country, the federalist and anti-federalist argument has never been resolved. While the States cannot rule as a confederacy, they must have some dynamic ability to restrain the federal government short of a constitutional convention.
As things are now, since Washington and Madison, through Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt and later, we have a steadily more powerful "imperial presidency".
And since the 17th Amendment, the States have been deprived of any input into federal law. And the bureaucracy has been delegated immense authority to regulate on its own outside of constitutional prerogatives.
Then likewise, the federal judiciary, some 3600 judges have the ability to federalize any local or State law at whim, which thereafter by precedent becomes a part of federal jurisdiction.
A Second Court of the United States would fit right in the center of things, not as a federal court, but as a State jurisdictional body, modeled on the original US senate with parallel terms for its judges.
Inferior to the SCOTUS, but superior to the federal district courts, it would serve two functions.
First of all, while federal judges could still examine local and State laws for their constitutionality, those 8,000 annual cases on appeal from the US district courts would go first to the Second Court, which would not determine their constitutionality, but if they should be returned to their State of origin as a local or State matter, not a federal matter.
They could still be appealed to the SCOTUS, but as most cases thus appealed are refused, instead of reverting to the determination of the district courts, they would instead revert to the Second Court, and thus be returned to the States.
Only if the Second Court agreed that they were a federal matter would they be returned to the decision of the district court. They would be aided in this by the arguments in lower federal courts.
The second reason for the Second Court is to have original jurisdiction of State lawsuits with other States and with the federal government. This means that the Second Court effectively acts as a nullification court.
Right now, for example, if 26 States joined the lawsuit against Obamacare, the Second Court would decide that Obamacare is unconstitutional, because it infringes on the sovereign rights of the States and the rights of the people.
While it could still be appealed to the SCOTUS, it would be fair warning that the States reject Obamacare. And if 2/3rds of the State judges (67) found against it, the case could not be appealed to the SCOTUS.
Likewise, the States could sue against any and every federal infringement of their power, or the rights of their citizens, be it by the president, congress, bureaucracy or judiciary.
Some of the first of these lawsuits would likely totally change the death penalty in the US, so States would be free to execute condemned prisoners quickly, and as they, not some federal judge, saw fit. By hanging, if other States agreed.
There would be no more unfunded mandates. Many federal agencies would be nullified out of existence, or be severely curtailed in their activities. Most National Guard units would be returned to their home States, unless war was declared.
And yet, if the Second Court overreached, the SCOTUS could under many circumstances overrule it, again keeping the federal government in balance with the State governments and the people.
#2
'Moose an obvious, but not the only, problem with your Second Court proposal is that it would be bound by existing SCOTUS precedent. The federal government has occupied so much territory that there's little left to the states and the people and every step in the federal advance has been abetted, bolstered & confirmed by SCOTUS. Restoring any part of the original balance of power among the nation, state & the people requires rolling back or avoiding that precedent. The Second Court wouldn't be successful doing that as it would be bound to decide matters in light of existing SCOTUS precedent.
I'd suggest that one could accomplish the neutering of the federal government from within the existing system. Consider: the lower federal courts are of limited jurisdiction the Supreme Court has very narrow original jurisdiction and Congress may remove matters from review by the lower courts. What would happen if Congress were to pass a law to the effect that states may remove themselves from any federal legal or regulatory scheme while simultaneously prohibiting review of the law or any related matters in the federal courts? There would be no avenue of review for state decisions in any federal court and existing SCOTUS precedent would be moot since the feds could have their agencies while the states merely decline to participate.
There are lots of way to skin these cats within the existing system.
#3
More courts are not the answer. Who will sit on the new benches? Same old group of lawyers and insiders. Even if it starts out well, it will eventually corrupted by the left.
The only true democracy is the ability to vote with ones feet. For that to work, you need options on where to go. To have options there must be places which are different, and for that you need Federalism.
The left wants everything federalized. They want one law everywhere. They don't want you to have options. It's hard, for example, to raise taxes when people and businesses keep fleeing to low tax jurisdictions.
State sovereignty is all about Federalism, and Federalism is all about choices. Nullification is nothing more or less than an exercise in state sovereignty. That's a good thing.
#5
This is just another man made portent of what's about to come. More and more states are lining up against the program. Soon you'll see the magic 2/3rds. SCOTUS is not that dumb to invite a possible Constitutional Convention which would surely see the means to finally bring them and their house down more than a couple of notches of power. Whenever the question would be to dump this noxious program or see both it and power drained from the ruling class, they'll toss it under the bus.
#6
AzCat: Within the federal court system, as things are right now, there is no such thing as binding precedent, unless a superior court binds an inferior court in a particular case based on a previous case.
All an inferior court has to do is say that the precedent does not apply in a subsequent case, and unless the superior court reverses their decision and says it does, then the precedent is effectively changed, *by default*.
But a Second Court of the United States goes beyond this. This is because it is not concerned with whether an appealed case is constitutional or not, but whether its jurisdiction is properly in the federal courts.
For example, a federal judge may assert that the infamous "Bong Hits for Jesus" case has been involved in constitutional arguments *twice*, and even though the SCOTUS has agree to hear it *twice*, were a Second Court of the United States in existence, it would assert that the matter should be settled at the State level, as there is absolutely no serious constitutional question involved.
And while the parties involved are so contentious as to still appeal it beyond the Second Court, in considering whether to hear the case, the SCOTUS would at least have the opinion from the States that it is not worthy as a federal issue.
And to still decide to hear the case, the SCOTUS would be expressing its contempt for the opinion of the individual States. This is something I suspect they would avoid doing over much, and because they have some 8,000 cases sent their way a year, it would be far more productive for them to hear cases that the States thought were worthy for federal hearing.
And much of the power of the Second Court comes from defaults of the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS does not hear a case, it first reverts to the decision of the Second Court. And then, *only* if the Second Court says it is a federal matter does it revert further back to the decision of the US District Court.
So unless the SCOTUS agrees to hear hundreds, or even thousands of the cases appealed to it, just to snub the Second Court, the States will get things their way.
#8
I am not sure that a Constitutional Convention is a good idea these days:
1) We don't have the geniuses who wrote the original
2) EVERYONE would work to get their favorite causes inserted into the new Constitution. Every leftist cause would fight to get in. You would probably end up with something like the EU constitution - a monstrosity that no one likes.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
01/22/2011 21:28 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Those men were stuff of courage not fear. We take measure of our own fears instead. Remember it still takes 3/4ths to ratify and if you have any belief let it be that the lefties can't get that kind of validation for their agenda while the center and right can. They fear that amongst all. Let them take council of their own fears and make concessions to avoid such a situation.
As far as a telephone book, regardless of the elegance of the American Constitution, it now is interpreted literally by a law library that makes such phone books seem small by comparison. Trying to ignore that only puts off what needs to be done.
#10
If I follow your logic Moose: you want a choke point on access to the federal courts in order to stem the flow of cases to them and thereby starve the federal government of its power. You'd install a Second Court as the federal judicial gatekeeper and force SCOTUS to pass judgment on the Second Court's determinations as to whether or not a given issue was sufficiently federal in nature before it was allowed to reach the federal courts.
A whole new court system isnt necessary to accomplish your end; it can be done via a Congressional modification to the jurisdictional statute that determines the basis for access to the federal courts. Modification of the existing jurisdictional statute to completely eliminate the power of all lower federal courts to hear supplemental claims based on state law would accomplish approximately the same thing by completely eliminating the ability of federal District & Circuit courts to hear claims based in state law (if thats the problem youre trying to solve).
Further, states can already largely prevent state law questions from going to the federal courts if their courts base decisions wholly on state laws. A decision from a state court citing both federal and independent and adequate state grounds for the decision wont be reviewed by the federal courts as the independent and adequate state grounds are themselves wholly sufficient (this is the important part) if the state law isnt in conflict with the federal law, the area isnt one in which the federal government has preempted state authority, etc.
That last bit is where existing SCOTUS precedent would scuttle your hopes of a Second Court acting as a gatekeeper to the federal judiciary. Existing precedent already states, in essence, that there exist only a vanishingly few areas in which states are free to act free of federal meddling. One *MUST* eviscerate that existing precedent or your Second Court would be no more than a rubber stamp bureaucracy passing nearly everything through to the federal side.
As residents lined the streets to bid a bittersweet farewell to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was moved to a renowned rehabilitation hospital in Houston on Friday, she responded to their cheers with a smile and even tears, her doctor said.
"She could hear it," said Dr. Randall Friese, a trauma surgeon who accompanied Giffords to Texas. "She smiled, and then she actually teared up a little bit. It was very emotional, very heart-wrenching."
The Arizona Democrat, who was shot through the head, left her hometown with the kind of police motorcade and live TV coverage often reserved for a head of state. Led by a dozen police motorcycles, an ambulance carrying Giffords drove to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, where she was transferred onto an air ambulance for the flight to Houston. A medevac helicopter (then) ferried Giffords to the trauma center at TIRR Memorial Hermann hospital. Doctors there said that the transfer went flawlessly and that Giffords would get her first rehabilitation session Friday afternoon.
"She looks spectacular," Dr. Dong Kim, chief neurosurgeon, said at a news conference. "She looks awake, calm and comfortable."
Dr. John Holcomb, who heads the medical team, said Giffords would remain in the intensive care unit at least until next week to ensure no infections develop. Doctors then will move her to the hospital's Institute for Rehabilitation and Research, which specializes in the treatment of brain injuries.
Giffords has "great rehabilitation potential," said Dr. Gerard Francisco.
Kim said Giffords may require four to six months of speech and physical therapy, although some of it may be as an outpatient. U.S. Capitol Police have set up extra security at the 119-bed hospital.
Best wishes in her recovery and rehab, and continued prayers for the families of those who died.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/22/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Look! Someone else is working hard to provide green jobs!
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has said the government has started consultation with all the political parties to work out a comprehensive and long-term economic reform plan for accelerating pace of development and sustainable economic growth.
Because no one in Pak-land has ever thought of doing that before...
Talking to a delegation of senators at the Prime Ministers House on Friday, Gilani said that the government had been making concerted efforts to bring an economic turnaround in the near future.
He said that despite the economic challenges, which resulted from the devastating floods, earthquakeslocustsfrogsplague terrorism and global recession, the government was striving to spare funds for development of the backward regions by cutting down its non-developmental expenditures. Gilani declared that a high-level meeting of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governor and public representatives of the Tribal Areas would be convened in the coming weeks to chalk out a plan for development of the FATA region, which was badly affected by terrorism.
Did he name a czar?
The parliamentarians appreciated the PMs humility for welfare of the poor segments of society and also lauded his announcement for opening universities in remote areas of the country.
He's at least as humble as Obama...
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/22/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
I saw Comcast got the approval to buy NBC the other day. Looks like the adults are back in charge...
Keith Olbermann is leaving MSNBC and has announced that Friday's "Countdown" show will be his last. Countdown's at "zero", Olbermann. Time to blast off. Clean out your desk. Security will escort you out.
Now, Olbermann! NOW!!!
MSNBC issued a statement Friday that it had ended its contract with the the controversial host, with no further explanation. Sorry about that, folks.We couldn't find a suitable synonym for "douchebag".
"MSNBC thanks Keith for his integral role in MSNBC's success and we wish him well in his future endeavors," the network said. Ah, Ye Olde "Don't let the door hit ye in the arse" statement...
Olbermann hosted the network's top-rated show, but his combative liberal opinions often made him a target of critics. Let's hope he'll now be the target of drunk high school kids at the Mickey D's drive through window on Friday nights.
"Hey, Mr. Big Shot! Where's my friggin fries!!"
Olbermann did not say why he was leaving. Sound like he didn't have much of a choice...
The host apologized to fans -- but not to the network. Yeah, I'm sure they're heartbroken at the network...
Don't let the door peacock hit you in the ass on the way out - you really can't afford any more brain damage.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/22/2011 0:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
couldn't happen to a lower d-bag, oh wait...Larry O'Donnell is even more unhinged
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/22/2011 0:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
He said he was grateful to the network that he was given time to sign off, noting that when he left ESPN in the 1990s, he was given 30 seconds cut in half at the last minute to get in tennis results.
#4
the value of his message was realized earlier than most, and predates the Snuggie and Shamwow, both of which have more $ per seconds
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/22/2011 1:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Olbermann hosted the network's top-rated show, but his combative liberal opinions often made him a target of critics gave him lower rankings than the ENTIRE FoxNews lineup.
Maybe he could do sports announcing for JV college games?
#9
I suspect he'll do the book/lecture thing with occasional returns as a guest on different shows that need a spike in the ratings. I wish he were gone but I just don't see it. The folks at Huffington Post went nuts over this, he has a passionate following, even if it is small and partially unhinged.
#10
Never watched him except when a sane news/opinion program showed clips of his idiocy, so he served the cause better where he was. He reminded me of the Far Side cartoon:
Posted by: jack salami ||
01/22/2011 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Safe in saying he won't be working at Fox?
Could you imagine the legions of Fox viewers who would tune in just to rage at him?
#14
Lets hope Comcast keeps going and adds some maturity and common sense to this network. Moving the network to the center, being critical of both parties could be a market coup.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/22/2011 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I detect a trend...
As an employee, Olbermann was his own kind of Worst Person in the World. His sense of superiority and caustic vibe eventually cost him gigs and friends at three networks. How naughty was he? Olbermann was the only former ESPN star not invited back for the sports networks 25th anniversary (hes allowed to participate on Patricks radio show only because Patrick promised that Olbermann would never set foot on the networks Bristol, Connecticut, campus).
....He was fired from his first stint at MSNBC after he denounced his own show in a commencement address at his alma mater. Fox hired him to host its major-league baseball Game of the Week and then sent him home with a year left on his contract simply for being a malcontent.
Still, where some saw a brash breath of fresh air, others saw a self-righteous gasbag. And despite the shows unprecedented success (Olbermann and Patrick were SportsCenters most popular duo), Olbermann was a world-class agitator. He began firing off thousand-word memos to management, lobbying on causes from saner hours for lowly production assistants to profit-sharing for ESPN employees who were helping the network generate billions. Along the way, he won a reputation as a miserable jerk. Of all the people Ive known inside and outside of the business, he was the unhappiest, recalls a SportsCenter staffer. Sometimes, at the end of the night, Id leave early just so I wouldnt have to give him a ride home. And it wasnt out of my way.
#17
"Years from now, all of us will be able to answer the heartrending question "where were you when you heard Keith Olbermann was quitting?"
It came so suddenly, and so unexpectedly. One moment he's calling the Tea Party racist, or declaring Sarah Palin to be "The Worst Person In The World," and the next moment he's gone. Keith, we hardly knew ye.
Currently, there is no solid information about why Olbermann and MSNBC parted ways. There is absolutely no indication that Olbermann had a longstanding homosexual affair with mass-murderer Jared Loughner, nor is there anyone willing to go on record that MSNBC believed Olbermann to be a necrophiliac pedophile who hated minorities.
Although rumors abound, there is no confirmation that Olbermann was terminated for "relieving himself" manually while looking at pictures of the First Lady's yams, nor should anyone believe - absent verifiable proof - that MSNBC forced him to leave because of drug, alcohol, and orphan abuse.
All we can say for sure at this point is that Keith Olbermann's journalistic voice has, for the time being, been stilled."
Lifted from Weaasel Zippers, thanks!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/22/2011 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Damn, Pan, that's hysterical! :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/22/2011 19:01 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The significant shift was tucked quietly into the Fed's weekly report on its balance sheet and phrased in such technical terms that it was not even reported by financial media when originally announced on Jan. 6. 
